AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, in Washington yesterday conferring with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, told a press conference ‘that Syria was transferring weapons systems to Hezbollah and that Israel is closely watching the developments, though he assured Israel did not plan to provoke a conflict’.

Israel has invaded Lebanon several times in the past so who can blame the Lebanese for wanting to defend themselves against further invasion by arming themselves with missiles? Just as Israel has the US as their ally, so Lebanon has Iran and Syria as theirs. Hezbollah remember the carnage the Israelis wrought during past invasions with massacres and the cluster bombing of civilians. With missiles that are more powerful than any they've had before, maybe Israel will think twice before attacking the Lebanese people again – though, somehow, I doubt it!.

The Israelis and their neoconservatives supporters will be particularly disappointed, to say the least, if Iran goes down the road of getting their fuel rods from a third country because it means Israel will then have lost any reason to continue directly threatening Iran with a strike against their nuclear facilities on the basis that ‘Iran is an existential threat to Israel’ if it continued enriching uranium.

That’s not to say, however, that the US would not attack Iran using Iran’s ‘interference’ in Afghanistan and Iraq as an excuse but, even if that happened, it would still be difficult for Israel to find an excuse to attack Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip as the war essentially would be between Iran and the US over events that are not directly connected to Israel.

If Hezbollah and Hamas did not make moves to strike Israel in retaliation for a US attack against Iran, then any move by Israel to strike Hamas and Hezbollah would be seen as an unprovoked attack and thus a war crime. In short, even if the US were to prevail in a future attack against Iran and managed to get the Iranian government to capitulate and submit to UN demands to have a new government that was ‘Western friendly’, it would deprive the Israelis of their endgame of creating a Greater Israel at the expense of south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The status quo would remain much the same as it is now provided Hamas and Hezbollah didn’t provide Israel with any excuse to attack them. Since Hamas and Hezbollah would have lost their main benefactor, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah would be taking care not provoke Israel. This, in turn, may frustrate Israel enough for them to seek other ways of coming up with a casus belli to attack Hamas and Hezbollah. As has been demonstrated before by Israel, they are likely to attack on the basis of the most flimsiest of excuses or, failing that, create one themselves.

According to Danny Ayalon, accusations about Israeli warcrimes are inappropriate because they come from those who “are the mouthpiece of autocratic regimes”. In his op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post today, he states that the Goldstone Commission was initiated by the Organisation of Islamic Conference and that attempts to arrest Israeli officials in Europe “are initiated, supported and funded by those in our region who will not allow a woman to vote and [who] kill and oppress their own people”.

Ayalon’s childish attempt to deflect accusations of warcrimes by arrogantly pointing out the foibles of other nation’s cultures would simply be laughed at if it were not for the fact that this man is Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister and is a member of Israel’s hard-right Zionist party, Yisrael Beiteinu. It’s a bit like a child being told off for bullying and the child responding by saying something derogatory about the behaviour of the kids in the classroom next door as though it will somehow excuse ones own bad behaviour.

Ayalon is a classic Zionist who believes that the way the world has treated Jews throughout history gives Israel exclusive rights to behave outrageously and with impunity toward all those that stand in the way of what they perceive as their God-given right to create a state from lands that are not theirs.

One should note that nowhere in Ayalon’s article does he attempt to defend the warcrimes accusations. He does, however, happily applaud Israel’s ‘successes’ in creating the state of Israel based on the ability of Israel to defend itself against victimhood. He ends his piece ominously with:

“We have continued Herzl’s vision, even after our independence, and are dreaming of bigger and better things. This is why we have a bright future, and we can make it even brighter, not only for Israel, but for all the people who are inspired, assisted and supported by Israel.”

‘Dreaming of bigger and better things’? Like what? Expanding Israel into south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank?

Monday, April 19, 2010

You’d have to be blind Freddy not to be able to see what’s really going on here. Just as the Israelis and their neoconservative supporters in the George W. Bush administration created the myth of Saddam’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ which resulted in regime change in Iraq, so the Israelis and those same neoconservatives have been trying the same ruse again in order to get the US to strike Iran in order to effect regime change.

But just as the invasion and destruction of Iraq was never really about ridding Saddam of his WMDs, so a strike against Iran will not be about halting Iran’s so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’. In both cases the objective is to change regimes to ones that are submissive to the US and, therefore, Israel. A neutered Iran with a compliant puppet government installed would then allow Israel to crush Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Ever since the 2006 Israeli war against Hezbollah and the Lebanese people when Israel and the US attempted, but failed, to provoke a conflict that would escalate to include Iran directly, the US and Israel and their supporters have intensified their propaganda war against Iran. Four years later and both the US and Israel have failed to bring the first and very necessary stage of striking Iran over its ‘nuclear weapons program’ to a head. While sanctions do already exist against Iran, they are largely totally ineffective in terms of halting Iran’s determination from going ahead with a nuclear program which is designed for electrical power generation and which, without any evidence whatsoever, Israel and the US are saying is a nuclear weapons program.

The US are now having massive problems in getting Russia and China on board to go down the road of tighter sanctions which would be the next necessary step before the US could say sanctions have failed completely and launch an attack against Iran. Without Russian and Chinese support the US would be not be able to muster enough favourable Western and world public opinion to support any attack against Iran.

As a result, the neoconservatives are now trying another tactic that they believe will provide a casus belli to attack Iran, one that doesn’t need UN support. Iran’s supposed influence in, and supply of arms and training to, Afghanistan is now being promoted as a reason for striking Iran in order to effect regime change. The neoconservatives have pounced on statements made by US chairman of the Joint Chief’s of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, who has said that ‘significant shipments of arms’ are being delivered to Afghan fighters from Iran; arms that the neocons are saying are being used to ‘kill Americans’.

While the neocons would much prefer Obama to simply ignore world opinion and launch a massive fait accompli attack against Iran, Obama is aware that he cannot launch an attack against Iran without first trying the sanctions road despite knowing that the sanctions road will not stop Iran’s determination to see its nuclear program into fruition. Obama is also aware that the people of the US are in no mood to launch another war in the Middle East even if such a war does not involve ground troops. However, Obama, like Bush before him, has not taken the military option off the table and may well be open to considering alternative scenarios that would provide him with a casus belli to attack Iran that the American people might support.

The American people have a history of becoming supportive of their government once their leadership has committed them to war and, if Obama detects even a slight swing towards support for war against Iran, he might just be tempted to launch an attack if he finds a casus belli scenario that does not need to involve sanctions or the UN. Intensive Iranian involvement in Afghanistan, real or not, might just well be all he needs. While the ‘Iran has a nuclear weapons program’ rhetoric will continue, it may be that the neocon’s rhetoric about Iranian support of the Taliban in Afghanistan will ultimately tip Obama’s hand to attack Iran and hand to Israel everything it needs to crush Hezbollah and Hamas and create a Greater Israel.

In Bolt’s latest commentary about Terreblanche’s death, Bolt attempts to invoke journalistic professionalism, (as if in his own work he actually cared about journalistic professionalism), in order to defend the monster that is Terreblanche against allegations that Terreblanche may have been sexually abusing young men.

The comments at the ‘Stormfront’ blog generally support Bolt despite Bolt’s ‘apparent’, as far as at least one Stormfront member infers, support for Jews. Another ‘Stormfront’ member, however, implies that ‘Bolt has to support Jews, Israel and Zionism because he’s part of the Jewish-owned media’. He’s not, but he’s certainly part of a media organisation, owned by Rupert Murdoch, that supports the Zionist cause.

Bolt makes it quite clear in his column that the real enemy is not Terreblanche but the blacks of South Africa – which, of course, reflects his own views about non-white non-Europeans everywhere, particularly in Australia. While Bolt treads a cautious path taking care not to outrightly appear to be supporting Terreblanche, Bolt’s followers at his blog make are quite overt about their support for Terreblanche as they try to deflect the ‘smearing’ of his, presumably, ‘good name’.

Bolt, whose ridicule of people who identify as Aboriginal Australians is well known, is also a fervent Islamophobe, and lobbyist against refugee non-white non-European asylum seekers who wish to find refuge in Australia.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Last Wednesday the Israeli Supreme Court sat to rule on the status of illegal Israeli settlements at Hayovel and Horsha in the West Bank. Despite the structures being illegal, each of the families received some NIS 77,000 from the state of Israel when they settled the sites.

That’s disturbing enough in itself, but what’s really interesting is the fact that Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, has asked the court for a six months adjournment before telling the court when the settlements will be razed as per the court’s orders. One wonders what’s likely to happen over the next six months that is likely to change the circumstances that dictate the future of these illegal, not to mention immoral, settlements. Will the status of the West Bank change over the next six months? If so, how?

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

There are two things about the Middle East that the world should be absolutely clear about. First, Israel has no intention of ever allowing any kind of Palestinian state to exist in any shape or form in any part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Second, there is absolutely no way that Israel can ever launch an attack against Iran without US knowledge and US connivance. Any claim that an Israeli strike against Iran was completely ‘unilateral’ would be a lie.

The talk of ‘peace’ between Israel and the Palestinian people is nothing but a ruse to play for time while the Zionist Israelis await for an opportunity to arise that will provide them with the excuse they need to massively invade and completely occupy the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and south Lebanon up to the Litani River. These are the ultimate aims of the Zionists of Israel and their neoconservative supporters in the US and elsewhere around the Western world. And it is the hope of the Zionists of Israel that Iran somehow will provide the casus belli to initiate such a chain reaction of events that will allow Israel to fulfil its dream of creating a Greater Israel.

A quick review of the list of so-called peace initiatives that have been attempted shows just how insincere and hypocritical the Israelis have been about Palestinian independence. Ever since Israel came into existence there have been no end of so-called 'peace talks' including the Jarring Mission, the Rogers Plan, the Reagan Plan, the Oslo Accords, the Wye River Memorandum, the Camp David Summit, the Taba Summit, the Elon Peace Plan, the Nusseibeh-Ayalon Agreement, the Arab Peace Initiative, the Road Map to Peace, the Madrid Conference, the Hebron Protocol, the Annapolis Conference, the Beirut Summit, the Peace Valley Plan, etc., all of which have been going on for years and none of which – not one – have amounted to anything, and all the time while these talks and negotiations have been going on, Israel has slowly and insidiously permeated its way onto lands that do not belong to them.

Today, Israel’s modus operandi has become blatantly transparent. They have demonstrated that there will be no let up in the building of settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem despite the rhetoric about wanting ‘peace’ – knowing full well that peace on Israel’s terms will not ever be acceptable to the Palestinian people and nothing that the Palestinians will concede to will ever be enough for the Zionists.

The neoconservatives and the Israel lobby in America have ensured that the US will never get serious about there ever being a Palestinian state. The Israel lobby have succeeded in ensuring that virtually all the members of Congress on both sides will unflinchingly support Israeli Zionism.

If Israel did attack Iran in what they would tell the world was a ‘unilateral pre-emptive first strike’, the world can rest assured that the US will respond by siding with Israel with immediate and massive follow-up strikes against Iran in order to deter Iran from retaliatory action against Israel and to compel Iran to capitulate or face further massive destruction upon their nation. Meanwhile, Israel will simultaneously attack both Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon and follow this up with full-on invasions of the Gaza Strip, south Lebanon and the West Bank on the pretext that these actions too are to pre-empt Hamas and Hezbollah retaliation after striking Iran. In the face of such a massive onslaught by the US and the Israelis, the Syrians are unlikely to respond with any great enthusiasm.

The West’s delusions about ‘peace’, a ‘Palestinian state’, and Irans suicidal bid to destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon will end in disaster for the people of the Middle East – and perhaps even the world.

There is now only one solution and that is the One State bi-national solution where the Jews of Israel live in equality with the Palestinian people, where the Golan Heights are returned to the Syrians, where both all of the Gaza strip and the West Bank becomes part of the new state and the Palestinians have full right of return with full compensation for their land losses paid for by the world community.

The alternative will be disaster for both the Arabs, the Israelis and the possibly the world.

UPDATE

Michael J. Totten, writing in the Zionist Neocon journal Commentary, has confirmed my assertion that attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to destroy its weapons making ability is not what the Israelis really want. He writes:

"If the Israelis decide to use force, the nuclear facilities should not be the target. The government should be the target. And the U.S. should back Israel's play and even assist it, no matter how enraged American officials might be."

This is exactly the scenario I suggested years ago at this blog. He also foresees the same scenario I suggested with regard to Hamas in the Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon:

"Striking Iran would, in all likelihood, ignite several Middle Eastern wars all at once. Hamas and Hezbollah would bombard Israel with missile attacks. Lebanon and Gaza would both come under massive counterbattery fire."

I have suggested this, but the ‘counterbattery fire’ would be followed up by invasion and permanent occupation.

Totten also suggests that:

“A military attack against Iran should be rolled out only if every conceivable peaceful solution fails first.”

He knows, of course, that there is no ‘peaceful solution’ to a problem that only exists in the minds of Western and Israeli schemers and deceivers who are manipulating the West to support a strike against Iran. They know that Iran has no ‘nuclear weapons program’ but are perpetuating the myth that they have for the same reasons as they did with Iraq – only this time there is far, far more a stake.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

It’s a sad fact that Australia has had a long history of intolerance of non-white and non-European people – including its own indigenous Aboriginal people. Proof of this is in the fact that it was only in 1962 that Aboriginal people were ‘given’ the right to vote in their own country, and only as recently as 1973 that Australia finally rescinded the White Australia policy which had dominated Australian immigration policies since Federation in 1901.

Nonetheless, despite the end of the White Australia policy, and the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, a small but vocal group of right-wing white Australians have continued to actively agitate against non-white non-European immigration to Australia and against Aboriginal rights in Australia.

These right-wing white Australians have always been vocal about race issues in Australia but the intensity of their rhetoric tends to rise and fall with the flow rates, in particular, of asylum seekers that arrive at Australia’s shores by boat. The racists that object to boatpeople tend to couch their arguments in terms of it being part of a broader debate on immigration to Australia generally. However, this is just a cover to deflect criticism of their real motives for objecting to boatpeople. The cover is transparent by virtue of the language they use to voice their criticism. Instead of calling them what they are; asylum seeking refugees, the racists tag them as ‘illegal immigrants’ in order to vilify them.

Boatpeople that come to Australia do so as refugees seeking asylum, something they are quite entitled to do under international laws and agreements which Australia are a party to. Once having arrived here, their claims are verified and, if they are found to be genuine refugees, they are offered sanctuary in Australia. Those not found to be genuine refugees are returned home. It is all very simple and straight forward. For the racists though, this is too much.

Virtually all of the boatpeople that arrive in Australia are non-white non-Europeans and it is this that the racists really object to. The vilification of asylum seekers that arrive by boat is reinforced by the fact that the racists ignore almost entirely the real illegal immigrants that are in Australia who have arrived by airline on visas the conditions and limits of which they have every intention of ignoring. However, because the vast majority of them are white Europeans (mostly British and American) the racists seem not to be concerned about them.

The racists’ argument against accepting boatpeople based on concerns regarding Australia’s population growth, particularly in light of recent statements that Australia’s population could be 35 million by 2050, also does not hold water since boatpeople make up less than half of one percent of Australia’s total average annual immigration intake. While the percentage value varies, depending on the geo-political stability of the world, it would rarely rise above one percent, yet the more extremist elements of the racist right-wing of Australia, particularly in the Australia’s mainstream media, are writing almost daily about the so-called swamping of Australia’s shores by boatpeople.

The move has placed Rudd in a moral dilemma with some even suggesting that the move is in contravention to the Racial Discrimination Act. Certainly, the move has been made for purely political reasons; to placate a section of Australian society that are clearly gullible to racist’s fearmongering at a time when the Australian people face going to the polls later in the year.

Australia’s Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has exposed Australia to be a truly racist nation by bowing to the White Australian extremists demands of limiting or stopping non-white non-European immigration into Australia.

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Yesterday, Wikileaks, a website dedicated to publishing classified documents and films, released a video showing the murder and wounding of Iraqis including two Reuters news workers who were murdered and two children who were wounded. Altogether, some twelve people died in the incident.

The film clearly shows Iraqis being blasted by machine-canon fire from a helicopter gunship. While arms are mentioned there is little indication that they were armed. Certainly after the initial attack, when a van appeared to take away the wounded, there was no sign of any arms yet the gung-ho American murderers decided to open fire on them anyway and then laughed after. Later, an American tank arrives on the scene and blithely drives over one of the dead Iraqis.

Despite the clearly murderous intent of the Americans operating the guns who can be heard almost pleading for permission to open fire on a clearly badly wounded Iraqi and the van that had arrived to evacuate him, Weekly Standard propagandist, Bill Roggio, attempts to spin the murders as being a legitimate action claiming that everything that happened was within the military’s Rules of Engagement and that the attack on the van that arrived to rescue the injured Iraqi was legitimate on account of it not being marked as an ambulance. But what is really disgusting about Roggio’s attempt to spin the incident is the way he accuses Wikileaks of merely sensationalising the event in order to attract media attention and internet traffic to their website.

Watch the video, read Roggio’s pathetic propaganda piece and weep.

These people want the world to be like them.

UPDATE

New York Times writers Noam Cohen and Brian Stelter must have read the Weekly Standard piece by Roggio as well. Cohen and Stelter have authored an article in today’s NYT entitled ‘Iraq Video Brings Notice to a Web Site’.

Their article is both a classic piece of distractive propaganda with a dash of sour grapes thrown in. Rather than talk about the horrendous crime that has been committed, the writers attempt to shoot the messenger - in this case Wikileaks - by suggesting that Wikileaks is merely attempting to big-note itself by releasing the film.

I say; 'Good on 'em!' If the mainstream media won't report important stuff like this, then let Wikileaks do it for them.

Search This Blog

Followers

About Me

is an Aeronautical Engineer, Historian and general carer of what goes on in the world.
Apart from an earlier career in engineering, Lataan also has a First Class Honours BA degree in History and a PhD in International Politics.
All material on this site is available for use without permission but it would be appreciated if the source is acknowledged.